Another variable is the multiplier effect of satisfying state- and buyer-imposed mandates.

âThere are companies like McDonaldâs that require a 200-foot buffer between any vegetation and a crop field,â said April England-Mackie, food safety and farm programs manager for Martin Jefferson & Sons, Castroville, Calif.

âBut if water quality regs say we must have a pond and the pond must have vegetation, then weâre losing a lot of our crop land to comply with both.â

âThereâs a direct conflict between the (boardâs) draft order on vegetative buffers and food quality standards,â said Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau.

âThe buffers specify native vegetation and no maintenance. Youâll have an area thatâs wildly out of control very close to fields and then have to add your setback for the quality standards. A fair amount of land will be fallowed.â

Opponents say aquifers would decline and open a door to saltwater intrusion â a longtime issue in the coastal area.

The groundwater features in the state draft touch the crux of the matter for Tom Am Rhein, vice president of Salinas, Calif.-based Naturipe Berry Growers.

âThatâs a huge can of worms to be opening up,â he said. âYou start getting into property rights and constitutional issues if a regulatory board can control groundwater.â

The new rules, whatever shape they take, will succeed a conditional discharge waiver thatâs expiring.

The board meets again in San Luis Obispo in April.

Another option

Still on the table is an alternative, supported by Farmers for Water Quality, among others, that would report efforts collectively rather than farm-by-farm, and would be overseen by a third-party auditor.

Supporters say that would build in a holistic picture of watersheds and keep proprietary information out of the public record.

Monterey County officials say annual crop values there would drop anywhere from $100 million to $167 million under the draft order.